Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 19

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was DELETED. CSD G14/G7 per discussion. --Hadal (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• D. J. Moore (disambiguation) → D. J. Moore  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target not a dab, so falls within

Speedy delete Thanks for the ping. Clearly falls under G14 as the DAB page has now been deleted per Talk:D._J._Moore#Requested_move_11_March_2023. @Saúl Rodrigo Martínez: could you please explain why you removed the tag? echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate to D. J. Moore / D. J. Moore (cornerback) / David J. Moore / etc -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good spot: also Devon J. Moore. However, I see no evidence of either being known by their initials, and we don't usually create dabs for "X. Y. Surname" – would a dab be useful here? (Deacon John Moore could sneak in as a See also.) Certes (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what the threshold is for disambiguation-lists-of-names before something like
  WP:TWODABS applies. Either delete or retarget to List of people with surname Moore, where the two football players are already listed, and where there's a link to David Moore (disambiguation) for David J. Moore. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Either delete or create a DAB here but it otherwise meets G14. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Put a G14 tag on the redirect just now, @

  his talk page) 21:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was history merged to Perspective distortion (photography) and deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Perspective Distortion, Source → Perspective distortion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Old, but now unhelpful. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is part of a series of incomplete cut-and-paste moves from before there was a move interface on the early Wikipedia. See the history now at Perspective distortion (photography) from Jan-Feb 2004. That title has been the target of a number of other cut and paste moves from titles like Perspective distortion (caused by camera to subject distance) and Perspective distortion caused by lens focal length, and there appears to be a completely parallel history at
  Perspective projection distortion, which also seems to be redundant with Perspective (graphical). It all needs to be kept for attribution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Never mind, I history-merged the few old edits into the page where the content ended up. The nominated page has been deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Salvio ^giuliano 17:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• An example of copyright infrigement → Copyright infringement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Typo ("infrigement" should be "infringement"), and unlikely search term. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Typo aside, we shouldn't have redirects for verbose descriptive elaborations of article subtopics. – Uanfala (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - besides everything Uanfala said, if this actually linked to a copyright violation we would have to delete it anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: an unlikely search term with a typo. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per typo and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#An acequia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even ignoring the typo, anyone who types this into the search box is probably not looking for encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Glades12 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy keep, given that the nomination rationale has been voided.

(non-admin closure) J947 † ^edits 04:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Abayomi Martin → Vokal (fashion brand)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is mentioned in the first sentence. -
  Talkback) 20:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  talk) 22:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - subject's real name per reliable sources. To be fair to the nominator, the first sentence read "Mohammed “Yomi” Martin" up to yesterday. It was a wikilink to Yomi Martin (also a redirect to this target) up to this edit in 2016, which appears to have been vandalism. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Capri#Economy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tourism in Capri → wikivoyage:Capri  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An encyclopedic article about tourism in Capri would be possible, with its history, economic impact, ... Linking instead to a tourist guide, only because it is a sister project, is not in line with our policies or aims. And combining a redirect with a "see also" section is just weird.

• Delete per redlink. This is an encyclopedic topic, and even if it can't sustain its own article should at least link elsewhere rather than off-site. 193.37.240.154 (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I like this much better than doing direct links between sister projects in the text, per
  WP:ASTONISH --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How does this make sense? No one is arguing to have "direct links between sister projects in the text", normally these shouldn't happen either. You seem to be presenting some false dilemma, as if we need to have one or the other, while we can just as well have neither.
    Fram (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I do not agree with your extremely narrow interpretation of

    astonish them. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Keep – I believe that guideline is mostly referring to soft redirects to Wiktionary. This use seems like exactly the point of {{
  Tourism in Capri, editors are welcome to replace the redirect. MClay1 (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • From that template: "This template is only for entries that currently exist on Wikivoyage and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible title." Is there any evidence that this had previously been created? Otherwise it doesn't follow the guidance of the template (which matches the guidance at
    Fram (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The template is barely used, so if that is the intended scope for its use, perhaps it needs a rethink. I don't think it's up to us to make judgements on whether or not a sister project should exist. If the quality of it is truly a concern, driving more people towards it will increase participation and eventually quality. Perhaps there needs to be a broader discussion to see if there is consensus on this type of redirect at all. But while they do exist, this one seems fine. MClay1 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should we drive our editors to a project which has a completely different purpose and doesn't in any way support Wikipedia as such? It's not like Commons or Wikidata (with all its flaws), which are directly used on enwiki. What benefit does it give enwiki to drive our editors to Wikivoyage? It doesn't improve enwiki, it doesn't present our readers with an encyclopedic article about tourism in Capri.
        Fram (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • "For arriving in style, Capritime Boats specialises in water taxi direct transfers from Naples, Sorrento, the Amalfi Coast and Ischia to Capri. They also provide luxury full-day and half-day boat tours to the Amalfi Coast and Sorrento Coast from Capri, tailor itineraries for cruise ship passengers docked in Sorrento, Capri, Naples and Amalfi and also offer special Capri and Ischia island boat excursions." Or do you prefer "Buonocore Gelateria Pasticceria Gastronomia e Tavola Calda, Via Vittorio Emanuele, 35, ☏ +39 081 8377826. Very close to the 'Piazzetta', this place is plenty of very good sweets but the best is their ice cream with just done/still hot cones. Assistants speak English."? Why don't we just let them put adds on enwiki instead, instead of forcing them to detour through this soft redirect first?
        Fram (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • If you think we shouldn't link to a wiki article because it's poorly written, by that logic, we also shouldn't link to bad Wikipedia articles either. If you have a problem with the way the article is written, you're welcome to improve it. In principle, as long as Wikivoyage articles are well maintained, there should be no issue with this sort of redirect. I have no objection to having a wider discussion somewhere else about whether we should be linking to Wikivoyage until its quality improves, but until there is consensus for that, we should not be treating it differently to Wiktionary or other any other sister project. MClay1 (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Who said it was poorly written? Perhaps this is perfectly written for Wikivoyage, I don't know and don't care what their editorial stance is. But in my view Wikivoyage is incompatible with enwiki, and
            Fram (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• I linked to
  WP:SOFTSP overall is a kind of baffling style guideline that seems about a decade out of sync with common practice. It implies that the main circumstance for creating interwiki soft redirects is after a transwiki [a process so rare that basically all other mentions of it in policies and guidelines have been removed], and that there is no such thing as an interwiki soft redirect with possibilities, which is at odds with years of RfD precedent. The guideline should probably be overhauled.) Finally, if there is a concern with soft redirects to Wikivoyage in general, as there was once a concern with inline links to Wikinews, then the appropriate venue to address that is an RfC to restrict that practice, not an RfD against one Wikivoyage redirect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have deleted multiple transproject soft redirects with just a reference to SSRT, no idea what your experience to the contrary is based on. Anyway, one RfD from 2021 hardly means that no other RfDs can be had, consensus can change (and the fact that that RfD was started also shows that these aren't uncontroversial). Finally, it is not unusual to first have a number of RfDs (or AfDs or whatever) to test the waters, before starting an RfC to get a more definitive answer. Of course, you are free to start an RfC to see if this practice is even allowed, basically creating an article with only an external link to an unreliable site promoting random commercial entities. You haven't really answered why you would think this would be a good idea in the first place, considering the quality of such targets and the discrepancy between such pages and the goals of Wikipedia (and what is expressed in
    Fram (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Again, it sounds like what you want is to ban redirecting to Wikivoyage, which is beyond RfD's purview. It's one thing to "test the waters"; it's another thing to RfD something with a rationale that would equally apply to an entire class of redirects that is currently allowed. I created this particular one so that I could link to the Wikivoyage entry from an article without the potential astonishment of taking someone directly to a different site, and with the added benefit of having the navbox there to show some related topics. And yes, you may have RfD'd things that would be discouraged under
      is useful. So again, if you want to make new policy, go start an RfC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • "I created this particular one so that I could link to the Wikivoyage entry from an article without the potential astonishment of taking someone directly to a different site"? Why would you link to the Wikivoyage article from an article anyway? Oh, I see, you want to have a GA at
        Fram (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]